2013-03-31 Class Notes

We continue again (after some break) with Andrew March’s book on Islam and liberal citizenship. Topics coming up are the pluralism, “al-Muwalah verses” and liberal citizenship.

Next topic he discusses is the permanent recognition of non-Muslim states. We agreed that there is no Islamic State right now which will require or recommend us to make Hijrah to it. On top of it the majority of the Muslim Land are in such a state that living in non-Muslim land may be better for their deen. So we left it to each individual to find out what is the best for his/her deen and decide what is the best place for living by the deen for an individual.

Footnote: In Islam, the Hijrah for improvement in financial or economic conditions could be a recommended Hijrah. Imagine if Khilafah stretched from Morocco to Indonesia and someone choses to move to Bangladesh since Engineers are getting better salary then one can make such Hijrah and it is perfectly permissible in Islam.

The next hadith that March has in his book is “.................”.

Some of the scholars have said that there is ijma that it is unacceptable to make a permanent treaty with non-Muslims. Some contemporary scholars have said it is permissible to make a permanent treaty. Some of the reasons with why this change has occurred is because of the concept of tawhid and the difference with the modern understanding.

It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it.

Thus this doesn’t include just opening the door to da’wah but also to make sure that the da’wah is prevalent over them. So what fraction of people in the US do you think read about Islam, like it, but when they work out what the consequences for their life is, it’s difficult. So the door isn’t really open for them.

The door will only be completely open for them. So Da’wah isn’t just spreading Islam -- it was making it easy for people to embrace Islam. So if you accept permanent treaty, that means you’re “locking out” this form of da’wah. For example, when Sahabah conquered new lands, they did not tell the non-Muslims that from now on this is your priest or this is your monk, but what they did was to give people freedom to become Muslims while making it clear that they have the backing of the state.

Footnote: Mushrikeen among the Arabs are a special case. They had to embrace Islam or fight. On the mushrikeen and atheists outside the Arabs the scholars differ on their status. Some think that they can be Ahl al Dhimmah and others do not. It is a topic for some other time.

Should your status as a citizen in liberal democracy should affect if you believe in some future arrival of Khilafah or alternate political system? (see page 124).

There is a difference in the interpretation of Jihad -- he says that if you think that if Jihad is removing barriers to conversion beyond oppression, then there is an issue.

Some schools, e.g. Shafi’i schools, allow for open-ended treaties. While others like ibn Taymiyyah and ibn al Qayyim say that open-ended treaties are OK, and then only if that treaty preconditions are violated do you revisit.

Islamic Modernists view about treaties with non-Muslim states

Articulating a new doctrine of Jihad as defensive, but they see that removing barriers to Islamic law. The best articulation of this is Sayyid Qutb’s views:

Sayyid Qutb emphasizes the fact that we can never have a permanent treaty with non-Muslim states. Sayyid Qutb says that no peace agreement can be made with Jews and Christians, except through the payment of a tax. They are not forced to accept religion, but they are offered peace only through the submission tax.

Some Muslims have used this to raise issues with the United Nations. March says that this is incompatible. So then he goes back to the question about the permanent recognition of a non-Islamic state.

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Sayyid Qutb considers this ayah to be of provisional nature. Qutb criticized those who understood this ayah and similar ayahs in a defeated mentality.

He argues that there are only three options: accept Islam, pay the jizyah, or be in a permanent state of war with Islam. He is saying there is a movement now to deny the principle of abrogation -- because if you reject the idea of abrogation, then you don’t have to take into account the later verses of the Qur’an.

He says that the idea of Jihad being only self-defensive is a defeatist approach. But March points out that what Qutb thinks is a defeatist approach is exactly what needs to be believed by Muslims in a liberal democracy.

2013-04-07 Class Notes

We were discussing the ayah in the context of the comments of Sayyid Qutb.

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Qutb was talking about the defeatist attitude of certain Muslims and in that context he made the comment which is being quoted by Andrew March on page 195. There is a difference between living in a society where Islam is dominant way of life versus a society where it is not. Many people who come into Islam are not able to live by Islam due to pressures from the society and their peers and family. So to help out such situation the Jihad as a call to make the message of Allah (swt) dominant is part of our tauheed. The idea of Jihad from the perspective of liberal democracy, this very idea that sooner or later that Islam should come to your land (even in some far future day) is problematic for liberal societies and March considers it problematic.

Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

March quotes all the above ayat on page 197 and then asks the question even if the modernists are interpreting these verses the way that they can be acceptable to the liberal democracy. The modernist (even if they have good intentions) are coming up with a system which is going to be compatible with Western thought. Many times they distort the Islamic concept completely and at the same time do not appease the Western thinkers at all.

These modernist say that most of the verses in the Quran are defensive in nature and the offensive ayat are specific to the polytheists of the time of Prophet (pbuh). So the more aggressive verses were for the specific time and place and are not general principles according to these modernist. They also claim if one can do dawah then one does not have to do Jihad. The second is that jihad is not to remove non-Islamic rules or systems, but simply for the purposes of da’wah.

So these modernists do not like Qutb and Maududi who want to revive the pure form of Jihad based on the Quran and Sunnah. Many of the modernists negate the notion of abrogation as a whole and say that we have to arrive at all of these verses equally.

There’s a large number of verses of restraint and the basic relationship is one of peace and coexistence of Islam. The aggressive verses are only related to treachery or aggression from non-Muslims.

If we take Modernists seriously then all the scholars of the past misunderstood these verses. Even March observes this and quotes Sherman Jackson (who was here at MCA not too long ago). He is an American Muslim who teaches in Michigan, is quoted on page 199. What Jackson argues that you do not only look at time of Prophet (pbuh) but you look at whole of history of late antiquity.

When Allah (SWT) revealed the Qur’an to Prophet Muhammad it was revealed in a time of war. The concept of recognition of other entities did not exist. The Qur’anic exaltation to fight was important to affirm their commitment to Islam in the milieu that they were in. This is also why the fuqaha developed concepts like darul harb and dar ul Islam. Everything was based on the ‘urf at the time.

Jackson’s PhD was on the topic of Al-Qarafi. In his book Al-tamyeez, it was important in formulating the different roles that Prophet Muhammad took on -- judge, head of state, religious leader.

Jackson quotes Qarafi “holding on to rulings deduced based upon customs is in open violation to Ijma and open ignorance of religion”. This statement is not that controversial. Because customs do change. But to say that the rules of jihaad are deduced on the basis of custom is not the same thing.

It looks like Jackson misunderstood Qarafi. If you derive a ruling based on custom (urf), then it is changeable. But Jihad is based on the texts -- the Qur’an. This seems to be a very large stretch and extension that Al-Qarafi never intended. Jackson says Qutb and those like him should take this dynamic reading, i.e. the one which changes with the change of time and customs.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Jackson says this is based on a historical fact at the time. Andrew March considers Jackson very optimistic on page 201.

Even the modernists say that if da’wah is threatened, then jihad is acceptable. But March is saying that even that is unacceptable. How can that be justified, then? How can we resort to war, just because some country is not open to da’wah?

Wahb Al-Zuhaili (a contemporary scholar) has written a number of books about Jihad in Islam, and he says that Islam does not prohibit the nation state as an entity, since Islam recognizes multiple communities. What remains is for an examination of “self defence” in the Islamic concept is the same as the liberal democratic version.

Even this may be problematic. Western countries are very uncomfortable with the idea of going out and protecting any religion.

2013-04-14 Class Notes

Liberal Democracies oppose the concept of Dawah

We continue to discuss the role of Jihad in Islam and its role in the dawah of Islam. A good book in Arabic is by Ali Al Ilyan which discusses this topic very well from the Islamic point of view. In the book of March, he quotes modernists who agree to Jihad if the institution of Dawah of Islam needs to be defended. March raises the questions regarding this if it is enough from the point of view of liberal democracy. March basically is saying that even with this modernist version of Jihad there are still some issues.

If you are supporting a war which is semi-defensive to defend the Dawah, and to March this is kind of war that goes against a war which liberal democracy can accept. This despite the fact the liberal democracy allows proselytizing towards its religion and March is saying this while in US certain Christian groups want US to go out and defend Christians all over the world with military force. March is also concerned with the fact that such jihad may create another state out there which is not a liberal democracy. Domestically we know that liberal democracy will not allow one to preach anything which changes the liberal democracy. It looks like it has problem of having a non-liberal democratic state elsewhere as well.

Liberal Democracy advocates believe that there exists no political system which will replace it

Andrew March thinks that the liberal democracy is fine with a state of Dawah which does not think that liberal democracy should ever be replaced with any other political system. At this point he gets into the concept of moral pluralism where the citizens of the liberal democracy has become one heart and can live together forever.

In many books by modernists they make claims that Sayid Qutub and Maududi made up this concept of offensive Jihad and it did not exist before them. The purpose of Jihad is to remove all material obstacles in such a way that people get to openly see the true Islam. It can be possible if Islam is dominant in a land.

For example, in USA there is so much nonsense regarding Islam (including Ph.D. thesis published on these attacks) that despite the fact we have openness to Dawah but we are going to run into much opposition, propaganda (media propaganda), etc.

Propaganda attacks against Islam

Unless the political authority belongs to the Muslims, one is not going to be able see the true Islam in the first place. Islam and Muslims are not opposed to discussions and debates but Islam is not open to blatant lies also which we have to deal with in this society.

It is obligatory on the Khalifa to make offensive jihad at least once a year according to Hanbali and Shafi madhab. In other schools it is considered recommended to go out on Jihad once a year, this includes Sufyan al Thauri, ibn Shibarma, ibn AbdulBarr, Ibn al Qayyim among others. They quote ayas like:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Footnote: There is a book attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah which argues that there is no such thing as offensive jihad and there is only defensive jihad. However, many scholars do not think that this book is from Ibn Taymiyyah. It is also possible to read this book another way which allows for the offensive jihad. So this is not a very conclusive book on this topic concluding that jihad is only defensive. In Islam the offensive jihad has it’s conditions and we have to bring the true picture of Islam and not some distorted picture of Islam.

Moral Pluralism and Al Wala wal Bara

March then discusses the topic of Moral Pluralism. On page 127 he starts to discuss the concept of al Wala wal Bara. It is the concept of having the basis of loyalty and love is for Allah (swt), His Messenger (pbuh) and His Deen and al Bara is the concept of disassociating and disliking for a people who oppose Allah (swt), His Messenger (pbuh) and His Deen.

To March this view is complete antithesis of solidarity of citizenship in the liberal society. He quotes Khalid Abdul-Qadir

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

So Khalid Abdul-Qadir opposes the working of Muslims in liberal democracies?? so the Muslims do not strengthen them.

O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth, having driven out the Prophet and yourselves [only] because you believe in Allah , your Lord. If you have come out for jihad in My cause and seeking means to My approval, [take them not as friends]. You confide to them affection, but I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared. And whoever does it among you has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way.

March quotes more verses as can be seen on page 128. March claims that the concept of the Wala and Bara is very vague in these verses. He is asking that are these verses relevant today or is it relevant to the struggle of Prophet (pbuh) only. For example look at Al-Nisa verse 139 which make it clear what the concept of Wala and Bara is:

بَشِّرِ الْمُنَافِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا

Sahih International

Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment -

Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely.

However, it is natural that March as liberal democrat will try to water such verses down. So March still concludes that such verses will stop a patronage and brotherhood between the citizens of the liberal democracy.

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.

March says that liberal response is that liberal state is a neutral state and it does not seek to forward any conception of truth or religion. We will take up from here next week, inshaAllah.

2013-04-21 Class Notes

Points based on Sayyid Qutb that Andrew March brings in his book:

1) There cannot be complete wala and bara with non-Muslims

2) The alliance with non-Muslims can be an act of aggression against Muslims.

3) Unbelievers are untrustworthy and will seek to subvert Islam in the long run.

Some scholars think that the liberal state is even more dangerous than the Christian or Jewish state since these states will at least believe in religion and obedience to God, however the liberal state does not and it will argue against the obedience to God and defines Freedom as such.

The question of real loyalty for traditional Muslim scholars is not going to go in favour of the liberal state. It sees only true Muslims as trustworthy. Another question that March raises is that do Muslims consider a non-Muslim state to be just. March calls this question beyond the scope of his book, however we will try to discuss it later.

What does liberal democracy require as a level of loyalty for another member to be accepted as a proper liberal citizen. Ultimately the liberal state has to require pluralism in society as true, i.e. allowing different people to think and defend what they see as truth.

On page 152 he moves on to the topic of solidarity with non-Muslims in Islam. He raises the question that how much respect the Muslims have to give to the non-Muslim fellow liberal citizens. He thinks that the basic fundamental point is to respect the property and life. He mentions that some Muslims do not believe in this (it looks like he has in mind the Muslims in UK who do actually think this way). Are the texts related to Wala and Bara problematic from perspective of liberal state citizenship and solidarity (where you have their real interest at heart). He then quotes:

Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.

Let’s turn the question around (and March also sort of does this) and ask the question that what is Wala from the perspective of the liberal state? Every liberal state defines itself in a certain way, e.g. America defines itself as white (and not black). Similarly French define it some way (as non Muslims and non Arabs), Germans define it a certain way but Muslims fall outside of such definitions many times.

Here is the paradox of the liberal democracy: you have basic liberal rights -- in general how you wish, just as long you don’t do anything that contradicts basic liberal practices. Here there is another thing they are asking for is that they want to be ‘belief police’, i.e. the liberal democracy has problems even with the beliefs of the Muslims. Even in Islamic state we only try to put restrictions on the actions of its non-Muslim citizens and not the beliefs of non-Muslims, however the liberal state is asking for even changing beliefs.

Towards end of page 156/157 he brings his example as Catholic and requires the same for Muslims. Privately we do not have to like them or deal with them but in public we have to treat them with respect. Then he summarizes his position end of page 157 (last two paragraphs) which is general doctrine of recognition.

A general doctrine of recognition would have two main pillars:

1. Recognition of a right not to be Muslim and some acceptance of pluralism as part of social life (i.e. if someone chooses to be non-Muslim forever then he should be allowed to do so and here Islam has not a problem since even under Islamic state we allow this to non-Muslim based on the ayah “there is no coercion in the Deen”).

2. An affirmation of relationships based on justice between communities.

Political liberalism goes to great lengths to convince non-liberals that it advances no truth claims contrary to their beliefs.

Then he presents the proposition RP on page 158 and J on page 159 and on page 160 he presents S.

Some have objected to contributed to mutual benefits in living with a community.

2013-04-28 Notes Class Notes

There is a paradox at the heart of the ideology of liberal democracies that should imply you have your fellow citizens’ best interests at heart, while at the same time liberal democracy claims to make no demands on a person’s beliefs.

So if I really want what is best for the people around me, and I want what is best for them, then I must want Islam for them, including the removal of liberal democracy; but they want me to support liberal democracy.

The key thing for Muslims throughout the world to understand is that man-made systems promising freedom is that you can’t promise freedom without violating people’s freedom to believe. Islam doesn’t come to people saying we are giving you freedom, but it’s not the kind of freedom and human rights that the West gives you.

Islam does not come to people to say that we are giving you the freedoms (at least not like the contemporary paradigms where the offer you human rights kind of freedoms) but we say we have this to offer which is needed for your success in the hereafter and also in this world you will get something which is very valuable and it will protect your rights that you feel are important.

You see this very much in Egypt right now. Between the Islamists and the liberalists. Either what these liberals will get what they want, or the Islamists the freedom they want.

Andrew March claims on page 160 that for the overlapping consensus that we have to be full believer in the political system. This means that in the public sphere one cannot make the argument based on the religion. The paradox is that no matter who will talk in the public sphere will be talking based on his personal beliefs in one way or another for example, the Evangelicals believe that the USA is a corrupted Christian state and once they take care of the corrupt people in different government branches then we have a pure Christian system at work.

[5:45] And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

So Islam says there can’t be really a non-Muslim just system, but some are more just than others, (e.g. the Negus).

But the liberal democracy requires that he not undermine the political process for Islamic purposes, even if it’s within the rules. It is OK to enter the political system to benefit Muslims.

Finally March comes up with 3 positions:

- My perception of the good is based on the purely personal pursuit of happiness, so I feel no obligation to participate. If someone threatens it, I’ll defend the system, but that’s about it.

- My perception of the good is based on pursuit of happiness some of which is communal, so I want to participate.

- My perception of the good is based on salvation, and I understand that many people don’t share my beliefs. I may participate for the sake of my co-religionists.

1 and 3 are affirmations of citizenship, rather than being resident aliens.

On page 162 PP: It is permissible for a Muslim to participate in a political system for the sake of Muslim communities and interests that may overlap with non-Muslims.

Pluralism

One has to accept the soundness of the beliefs of others inwardly and outwardly. The pluralism can be religious, political, etc.

John Hicks died last year who wrote the book ‘the myth of god incarnate’ and is proponent of religious pluralism. Muhammad Arkoon is friend of John Hicks and is proponent of Islamic pluralism. Less than 1% of the Muslim Ummah know who Muhammad Arkoon however 70% of those non-Muslims who are interested to rule the Muslim world take Muhammad Arkoon seriously. Arkoon developed these ideas in the light of Apartheid. Hicks once asked the question, “why should a just and loving God abandon many devout believers in partial darkness and leave them in a disadvantaged position................” So Hicks is starting from the position that everyone who is outside of this liberal system is doomed. Hicks refers to God as ‘the real’ and considers the real to undefinable and our experiences are nothing but a perception. One perception is just as good as the other, so when we are contradicting each other then we are trying to understand the same reality so we can be OK with contradictions.

Tariq Ramadan: The Quest for Meaning -- Developing a Philosophy of Pluralism

Farid Esack from South Africa

Visiting scholar in Harvard Massachusetts. He was part of the anti-apartheid movement, and he wrote a book called Qur’an, Liberation and Pluralism. He builds new principles of tafseer (hermeneutics) to reinterpret the categories of Islam, Iman and Kufr and is used as the basis for a Qur’anic of Theology of religious pluralism.

Those who disbelieve in the signs of Allah and kill the prophets without right and kill those who order justice from among the people - give them tidings of a painful punishment.

أولئك الذين حبطت أعمالهم في الدنيا والآخرة وما لهم من ناصرين

They are the ones whose deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and for them there will be no helpers.

Combines the doctrinal with the political (qist).

He then goes on to say that the tafseers get it wrong by pointing out that they confuse kufr with the political notion.

“Despite the frequency of associating kufr with disbelief its most significant semantic attribute.” Then quotes Asad saying that it is more than just someone who disbelieves.

So a kaafir is someone who denies the truth -- so kufr is an active dynamic attitude of rejection of known truths. The biggest problem is that if Islam gives something a new meaning, that takes precedence.

So a kaafir in his believe is someone who sees the truth and deny it deliberately.

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

Some people quote this as a sign of Islam’s tolerance. But this is not the case since this verse points to a radical subdivision between Muslims and non-Muslims. The racial, ethnic and linguistic equality is there, just not the religious equality. In fact the verse says the opposite -- the most honored of you are the most conscious.

Islam’s recognition of previous revelation

This is problematic for two reasons:

1. What about non-Abrahamic faiths?

2. We kind of reject it anyway.

Tradition in recognizing uncertainty and ikhtilaaf

Islam has a long tradition of ikhtilaaf. And we know how to disagree in opinions. However, this doesn’t provide evidence of moral pluralism -- ikhtilaaf must be within the realms of what’s acceptable within usool ul fiqh. It is exactly the rejection of the metaphysical principles that political liberalism requires.

“Texually inclined” believing Muslims

Going back to the verses revealed in the pre-Hijra Makkah period talk about belief that doesn’t require monotheistic belief.

http://quran.com/6/149

قل فلله الحجة البالغة فلو شاء لهداكم أجمعين

Sahih International

Say, "With Allah is the far-reaching argument. If He had willed, He would have guided you all."

And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?

وما كان لنفس أن تؤمن إلا بإذن الله ويجعل الرجس على الذين لا يعقلون

And it is not for a soul to believe except by permission of Allah , and He will place defilement upon those who will not use reason.

So effectively he is saying that Allah wills that there be non-Muslims.

There are two types of Iraadah:

Kawniyyah: Allah’s creative will -- the laws of this cosmos -- the ability to follow or reject the truth and gives the ability to humans to kill other humans. Allah describes in the verse thahara al-fasaad.

Shar’iyyah: It doesn’t have to do with what Allah willed. When someone kills someone else, Allah willed it. This defines what Allah wants from us -- what Allah is pleased with and displeased with.

What Allah allows to occur doesn’t mean that Allah likes it.

Al-Ihtijaaj bil-Qadar is an interesting book by Ibn Taymiyyah about people resorting to Qadar when they sin.

All of these verses are pre-Madinan verses.

So how should we deal with these pre-Madinan period.

Mahmoud Mohammad Taha claimed to receive new revelation. And that we should all go back to the Makkan stage, but he says many reformist doctrines are based on those Makkan verses. Taha called his message the second message and his followers were called the Republican Brothers.

The Makkan verses are also very important because they relate to a context where Islam was not a dominant force. Therefore similar to what we are doing now.

Yusuf Nabahani said: we’re in the Makkan stage, and said give me 13 years. His group became HT.

He says the Makkan Qur’an contains the “universal aspirations of Islam.”

YQ’s commentary says “If you willed all mankind to be one, then you would be going against divine will.”

So to that [religion of Allah ] invite, [O Muhammad], and remain on a right course as you are commanded and do not follow their inclinations but say, "I have believed in what Allah has revealed of the Qur'an, and I have been commanded to do justice among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. For us are our deeds, and for you your deeds. There is no [need for] argument between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is the [final] destination."

For every religion We have appointed rites which they perform. So, [O Muhammad], let the disbelievers not contend with you over the matter but invite them to your Lord. Indeed, you are upon straight guidance.

وإن جادلوك فقل الله أعلم بما تعملون

And if they dispute with you, then say, " Allah is most knowing of what you do.

الله يحكم بينكم يوم القيامة فيما كنتم فيه تختلفون

Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ."

March now quotes a fatwa from YQ as to whether Jews and Christians are Muslims. How do we reconcile our belief that they kuffar when we are told to tolerate it?

YQ expresses it in the following way.

1. Muslims believe that Allah gave people to have the free will to not believe in Islam.

2. It is not for us to judge non-Muslims.

3. No problem in believing in the believer’s unbelief while at the same time giving them their rights.

The kinds of things happening in Makkan period -- accepting that Allah has ordained some people will not believe, this is not enough for a liberal democracy. Pluralism as “divine injunction” is not sufficient, particularly in a Muslim-majority countries.

Two main things must be there:

1. There must be freedom for this pluralism.

2. Political justification must be public in a particular way.

This pluralism as divine injunction is insufficient neutral from a philosophical point of view. Instead there has to be some kind of foundational respect for others. Not just accepting their existence, but accepting them as they are -- we have to have justice amongst all of the different communities.

2013-05-19 Notes

Is there some basis in Islam for justice between equals -- not just justice, but equals.

There are a number of verses in the Qur’an that tell the believers to uphold justice and equity.

O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah , even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Then he quotes Yusuf Qaradawi -- says he calls to justice even towards idolaters. Rachid Ghannouchi -- Islam enjoins justice not just for Muslims, but even one’s enemies.

This is a position that is universally affirmed, even by those who hold incompatible perspectives, like Sayyid Qutb.

Tabari: you must treat all religions equitably and justly. It has not been abrogated. God loves the just and those that give people their rights.

IT: No-one can treat anyone else unjustly, even an unbeliever.

What’s the catch? Obviously authors like Qutb, Tabari, etc -- are operating with a different definition of justice from that of political liberalism. An additional problem with the orthodox claim is that according to classical Islamic law, these are not equal rights. It is kind of Plato’s republic, where there is equality, but unequal responsibilities.

But perhaps sufficient for Muslim minority community.

Story about IT, once defended a Christian accused of insulting the Prophet (SAWS), because there was insufficient grounds to persecute the Christian -- at least there is a procedural commitment to it.

Muhammad Fadlallah -- some Muslims see western orgs as prey to be abused etc. In fact, we see the PoV of Islamic ethics, we can not divide the ethics into different categories. We must be people of faith and trustworthiness. If you are a state of peace with non-Muslims then you must behave ethically.

Similar statements can be found in Sunni texts. Goes on to describe the concept of moral obligation (mostly As’arhi school). Ash’ari school have an interesting perspective on the reason behind Allah’s revelation. So they take the same perspective on rights + moral obligations. There is no reason behind them, except that they have come from God. Therefore the lives + property of Muslims are inviolable -- simply by being part of Islam, you have all of these rights. But what about non-Muslims?

[Aside: Note that liberal democracies don’t always show the same consideration]

The he points to something that is problematic: someone who is not a dhimmi, or for whom we do not have a peace treaty. If you look closely in the books of fiqh about people who are outside these groups, either from dar al harb -- we have no kind of contract/need to respect them.

More of a theoretical concept. Goes back to question of what is the default case between Muslims and non-Muslims outside of any kind of agreement? Is the default case one of non-recognition or is the default case that of peace? Definitely amongst the classical scholars, the default case is one of antagonism.

For Qaradawi and Ghannouchi say that Muslims living in a non-Muslim state we are under a social contract and thus our relation is a peaceful, just one with a reciprocal relationship. March argues that it would be better if there was a better philosophical foundation for this.

In political liberalism, everyone will be considered an equall member with equal rights.

Statutory: Divine law tells us that we have to look respectfully to others

Contractualist: Our “implicit” contract as non-Muslim residents.

Consequentialist/Utilitarian: This is the practical choice.

Da’wah

If you want to bring everyone to Islam, that’s problematic; there must be some driving force behind it.

Some modern scholars say that the basic relationship of that between Muslims and non-Muslims is that of Da’wah. One way of looking at Da’wah is recognizing the common humanity and potential salvation of all humans, but it also involves a type of integration and a kind of concern for others.

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand

Characteristics:

- Maw’ithah -- warned him, put him in fear -- good-willed warning: posture of goodwill, friendship, patience, sincerity, engagement with one’s society. Fadlallah: one of friend/giver of good advice/seeks that which will benefit the other.

- Can you call someone to Islam while harboring ill will?

2013-05-26 Class Notes

Last week we were talking about the concept that we could not find an equivalent modern concept, we discussed the divisions of lands into various categories, for example if you look at old books of fiqh in which they divided the world into Dar el Islam and Dar el Kufr, where the Muslims didn’t have a pact with. This was a theoretical concept because the Muslims did not just invade lands. They talked about what if a Muslim went into some land with which Dar el Islam did not have a treaty then what to do if a Muslim stole from there etc.

An equivalent modern concept is that of treaties of extradition, if two countries do not have an extradition treaty, then they would not return a known criminal back to the nation requesting it. See Julian Assange’s case.

Another issue that we discussed last time was the attitude of Muslims with which they do not have any pacts. Liberal democracy does not make any demand upon you, if you do not have treaties or relationships with nations that they do not have pacts, liberal democracies do not force you to think about them. However Andrew March asks this question of the Muslims, there is no basis for this question, or it’s unclear why this question is being asked.

How Muslims treat non Muslim citizens of nations with which they have a pact is relevant question. But if you do not have a pact with them, then this question does not have any basis.

In liberal democracy is there any question of how others have to be treated. For example, does an American liberal democrat has to worry about how to look at Russian and how to treat the Russians.

Relationships between Muslims and Non Muslims

Andrew March has a section about dawah in his book, what is the point he is trying to make?

He says that if we are living in the liberal democracy just for the sake of dawah and we look at the non Muslims as candidates for being future Muslims, then this is a problem for liberal democracies. He wants to put forth how Muslims should view non Muslims in liberal democracies.

Attitude of Muslims towards Non Muslims to whom they are calling for dawah

Andrew March quotes, Faisal Mawlawi’s statement is that when you hate someone, can you make da’wah to them? What kind of a feeling of attachment/affection can we have for a non-Muslim while making da’wah to them?

He goes on to say: How can a person make da’wah without even giving a greeting, if there is no feeling of affection/respect then you will never succeed in calling them to Islam?

If you are calling them for the sake of Allah swt and simply for the sake of Allah swt, and that is your driving force, you will make sure that your dawah is correct and in manner prescribed by Allah swt and the Prophet (saws).

When you are doing an act to please Allah swt, then you actions would be much better than if you are doing it for your own sake such as solely for the love for a fellow human being.

What happens to the relationship between the two, if the person keeps on refusing the dawah.

We are trying to define this feeling of affinity between a Muslim who is making dawah to those whom he is making dawah?

Andrew March says that whether a Muslim feels love or affection towards his fellow non Muslims needs to be dwelved upon. Then he discuss the following verse:

Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.

These verses of walaa, he discusses them later from the perspective of liberal democracies.

Andrew March asks this question, is it possible for a Muslim to love his non Muslim on his account of his unbelief?

Andrew March quotes Faisal Mawlawi who says ..... that even non Muslims can have good qualities of justice and we should be able to love them for the sake of Allah swt because of these good characteristics.

A person’s good qualities are from his fitra, nature given by Allah swt. If a Muslim does justice for reasons of unbelief, then we would find it blameworthy.

March says that there are two points that are important (pages 222 and 223):

1. Human beings form bonds of trust separate from religion. Such bonds are inferior compared to bonds formed by religion, but a Muslim can be sincere in these other types of bonds. Faisal Mawlawi says that a person can be honest and you can love him for it, except for some act that is blameworthy, which he calls Al Hubb al Fitri. There is some support for this amongst scholars. Most scholars call natural love -- al-hubb al-tabee’i الحب الطبيعي.

Prophet loved Makkah, he said that you are the best land for me and the most beloved land for me and were it not that my people drove me away from it, I would never have lived in any other place

“I saw the Messenger of Allah (saws), when he was on his she-camel, standing in Al-Hazwarah* saying: ‘By Allah, you are the best land of Allah, and the dearest of the land of Allah to me. By Allah, had i not been expelled from you I would never have left.’”

Many of the sahaba expressed this love of Makkah, at that time Makkah was a non Muslim land, They loved Makkah so much that some of them became sick when they left Makkah. So could this be considered as Al Hubb Al Tabee’i?

The above texts do not explain why the Prophet loved Makkah. We also know that this love of Makkah did not keep the Prophet from fighting the Quraysh of Makkah, we also know that the Prophet was attacked by the Quraysh.

Most scholars agree that there is a concept of Al Hubb al Tabeei which is different from religious love.

Mawlawi goes on to say (quoted on page 223 of March’s book) that these bonds go on to form a bond of brotherhood, there are many types of brotherhood other than Islamic brotherhood such as human brotherhood, national brotherhood, familial brotherhood, etc.

Can we justify human brotherhood from the shariah perspective?

Brotherhood is a shariah perspective, that all Muslims are in a brotherhood, can we apply that to other forms of brotherhood? You can call it what you want, but it does not have value or weight in the shariah.

Footnote: It is wrong to quote a scholar out of context. Many people quote Nawawi and say that brotherhood goes beyond Islamic brotherhood, but they don't mention the rest of the quote, that you should love them so much that you invite them to Islam, they forget to mention this part of the quote.

What about the statement of Prophet Ibrahim when he called upon the non believers and called them akhi?

What about national brotherhood? Are we now fighting over terminology?

Can we say that our fellow non Muslims have some demands upon us, but do we call them as brothers? What exactly do we mean by brotherhood?

Footnote: If your neighbor is a Muslim and he is your relative, then he has three rights over you, which includes rights of a relative, rights of a Muslim and rights of neighbor. A non Muslim neighbor has only one right over you.

Mawlawi when he comments about believers says “for brotherhood between believers and unbelievers has other reasons, such as shared nationality, humanity or interests”.

March says that these ideas are common in the pragmatic community of Muslim scholars.

Some conservative scholars say that this concept of national brotherhood is okay, some say it is not okay. The terminology is not that important, we have to understand what we mean by brotherhood.

March says that solidarity based on shared interests and common principles and goals is the basis of liberal democracy and this is what Mawlawi mentions.

However what March is saying is something lesser than what Mawlawi mentions.

March then mentions shared interests bonds are hubb al fitri and they can be formed anywhere. And since you have this shared commonality, now you can have shared ....

Mawlawi says that you should have love and affection towards those whom you call for dawah. Is that true?

When you make dawah, you want to create a person towards whom you will have love and affection, this doesn’t have to be prior to making dawah. If you are making dawah in a prison, and you are trying to rehabilitate a murderer, do you have to love towards that person, or should the final goal be that of love and affection towards the person who has been rehabilitated.

Every human being is born with the fitra of believing in Allah swt and every person is capable of change. Umar went from being in opposing the Prophet (saws) and intending to kill him to becoming a Muslim and loving the Prophet (saws).

Do Republicans have to love Democrats? If this love does not exist, does it hurt liberal democracy?

So this point of love and affection between non Muslims and Muslims is not an important point, and there is no reason for Andrew March and Mawlawi to discuss it at all.

A Muslim should have hope towards the non Muslims, since human beings can change.

Mawlawi says that we should have mercy towards them, since Allah has ordered us to have mercy upon them. So now Mawlawi contradicts himself, he moves from love to showing mercy.

March then says that this alleviates the concerns that they had about dawah. And then he goes on to contradict himself too......

2. Argue with them in a kind manner. This the second important point from Andrew March.

2013-06-02 Class Notes

Edit: This is the last class for this quarter.

Last time we were talking about calling non-Muslims brothers. A very important principle we could not discuss it last week while we were talking about brotherhood of mankind. Here in some cases the issue just boils down to semantics. Sometimes we just use words and they have no meanings to them. In Muslim world we call our elders uncles and aunts, however that does not make them our uncle and aunts. Similarly the question of calling all non-Muslims brothers, one cannot give them the same rights as they have as brothers of the part of the Muslim Ummah.

Couple of Fatwas on calling the non-Muslims brothers

First Fatwa by Ibn Uthaymeen about brotherhood

Ibn Uthaymeen says that it is not allowed for a Muslim to describe a disbeliever (whether Jew, Christian, Magian, Atheist, etc.) as brother. There is no brotherhood between the disbelievers and believers.

Brotherhood is solely for the question of Iman. Even if someone has a blood relationship with you, even this brotherhood can be dismissed. For example, when Nuh says “my son is from my family” and Allah (SWT) says “he is not from your family, his actions are not pious” -- so there is never any brotherhood between a believer and a disbeliever.

O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth, having driven out the Prophet and yourselves [only] because you believe in Allah , your Lord. If you have come out for jihad in My cause and seeking means to My approval, [take them not as friends]. You confide to them affection, but I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared. And whoever does it among you has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way.

Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.

Second Fatwa From IslamNet about brotherhood

The same question was asked and then answer was, there were some details with this. If the person means he is a brother in faith, that’s not acceptable. But if he means he’s a distant blood relation there is nothing wrong with that.

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

This implies a kind of recognition and there are no problems with using what is called the “scientific method.” The discussion is not going to be solely faith-based, but it also implies an openness to discuss and they also have the right to counter. So there is a commitment to rational debate.

Islamic commitment to equality and respect - Jidaal

Andrew March mentions on page 224 that the Islamic commitment to jidaal, is a commitment to discursive equality and respect. What he says here is something we are not going to have much problem with. For example someone who is worshipping Jesus out of ignorance then we will say that he is doing it out of ignorance but his position is still wrong. So we will approach him gently and try to remove his ignorance.

On page 225, March continues and quotes two ayat [10:99] and [2:256]. However then later he towards the end of page 225 starts to question the classically minded scholars and comes to the question of Islamic state. The goal and purpose of the Islamic system is to preserve Islam so it is obviously going to have laws which will try to preserve the central role of God in the life of the society. The West has replaced the position of God by certain defined freedoms and rights. So we are talking about two different systems and we have to go back to the question which system is the true one and the correct one.

So if someone is going to say that liberal democracy is a different system than Islam, then we should respond by saying yes that is the case, and there is no issue with saying so.

Da’wah and Hikmah

The March goes on to the fourth concept of Hikmah. At the end of page 226 is bringing the ideas from Fadl Allah (the Shia Scholar). What March is trying to say is that if you are doing da’wah to bring people to Islam -- there is some problem between liberal democracy and religion -- because if you succeed, it would mean the end of liberal democracy.

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

What is the meaning of hikmah and maw’ithah hassana?

Ibn Qayyim -- it’s not wisdom, it is the knowledge and wisdom in the Qur’an to call people to the way of Allah. This is the true knowledge -- these are the strongest in a rational sense and they have the greatest effect on the hearts of individuals.

Maw’ithah Hassanah refers to the beautiful expressions Allah has used in His Book. It is something which has to affect the heart of the listener.

Ibn Taymiyyah extended this a bit further and he said when making da’wah to people there are three groups:

1. Some people, all you need to do is show them the truth.

2. Others you have to exhort them further and try to convince them.

3. You give some people the proofs, and then you leave them.

The use of hikmah in this way really isn’t faithful to the early tafseers. If one starts to think of Dawah this way then one goes even further away from what Faysal Mawlawi and Fadl Allah is saying.

The liberal democracy and secularism cannot understand and fathom and accept the concept of something being done only for the sake of Allah (swt). The liberal democracy is about putting your deen in the back seat and just live for your own selfish needs.

So liberal democracies are not designed for people who want to put religion first. The liberal democracy will always have problem with the religion.

In contemporary times in Europe, there are demands now on your religious perspective, so they are unwilling to accept the Muslims unless they are willing to compromise on Islam.

Footnote: One has to accept that Islam and Capitalism are standing up for something. Even the Pope today is trying to say that Christianity is standing up for something different from Capitalism. So the clash of civilizations may take place, but no one knows how the nature will be.

So March (on page 227) goes back to the question of how to look at Da’wah? What’s crucial is not that Da’wah is obligatory, but that it is a command. So if all you are trying to do is to convince people to become Muslim, that’s not sufficient. But if you have a love for people, and you’re trying to convince them to join Islam out of love, then maybe it’s OK.

In the end top of page 229, March says that may be we have overlapping consensus comparable to Habermas’s interpretation. InshaAllah, we will continue with the Muwalah verses after Ramadan.